NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
*'''Exclude'''. The SPLC is a good organization but it's not an ideologically unbiased organization and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic and cast too wide a net. The Slate piece is just a blog. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/26/white-nationalists-and-nativists-want-americans-pay-keep-america-white/215141 Here] you have "Charles Murray, a white nationalist..." but that is Media Matters, also smart people but also ideologically biased. What we want is ''Time'' or CBS denoting him as a white nationalist. I can't find an instance of that. Also, Murray denies being a white nationalist; he's not out-and-proud like [[Richard B. Spencer]] or whatever. That matters some, in a BLP. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Exclude'''. The SPLC is a good organization but it's not an ideologically unbiased organization and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic and cast too wide a net. The Slate piece is just a blog. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/26/white-nationalists-and-nativists-want-americans-pay-keep-america-white/215141 Here] you have "Charles Murray, a white nationalist..." but that is Media Matters, also smart people but also ideologically biased. What we want is ''Time'' or CBS denoting him as a white nationalist. I can't find an instance of that. Also, Murray denies being a white nationalist; he's not out-and-proud like [[Richard B. Spencer]] or whatever. That matters some, in a BLP. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Exclude from lede''' (From BLP/N) If it is only the SPLC making this claim, and its claim parroted by others like Salon, then it is a small viewpoint that should not be presented in the lede. It can be included in the body obviously along with his counter-claim. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Exclude from lede''' (From BLP/N) If it is only the SPLC making this claim, and its claim parroted by others like Salon, then it is a small viewpoint that should not be presented in the lede. It can be included in the body obviously along with his counter-claim. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Include''' - as per Maunus' comments, this is a pretty key feature of his public image and notability. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
=== Threaded discussion === |
=== Threaded discussion === |
||
*I don't know whether it's an appropriate description of Murray, but I agree with part of the edit summary of the editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)&diff=763846295&oldid=763358200 removed it] that it doesn't belong at the end of the [[WP:lead|lead]] unless there's a discussion of his views and why the SPLC considers him a white nationalist elsewhere in the article. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC) |
*I don't know whether it's an appropriate description of Murray, but I agree with part of the edit summary of the editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)&diff=763846295&oldid=763358200 removed it] that it doesn't belong at the end of the [[WP:lead|lead]] unless there's a discussion of his views and why the SPLC considers him a white nationalist elsewhere in the article. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:40, 2 March 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Burning" a cross
According to the source cited in the biography on Murray burning a cross as a teenager, this is what transpired: "...they nailed some scrap wood into a cross, adorned it with fireworks and set it ablaze on a hill beside the police station, with marshmallows scattered as a calling card." Is it really fair to describe what transpired as "burning a cross", with all the racist connotations, when it could be more specifically described as "destroying a cross with firecrackers"? Regardless of the man's racial views later in life, whatever they may be, it's pretty clear, at least from the cited source, that the action bore little resemblance to the KKK ritual. 116.212.152.217 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Views on SAT
Today, I added a sentence regarding Murray's views on the SAT as per a recently published NYTimes editorial. --Elakhna 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
Whenever someone writes an article on Coming Apart, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/when-poverty-was-white.html will prove invaluable. 68.191.166.52 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Pro/Con links
Some of the links for pro side are not really good, it includes blog posts. Perhaps there should be inclusion of academic sources who agree with Charles Murray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.29.128 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Flynn book blurb quote
I think the quote is essentially about the book, not Murray, and belongs there, not here. But if I'm alone in that opinion, I won't push the point. Barte (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- To me, I thought it was also a statement of Murray's state of knowledge (about unspecified issues, alas) before and after reading the book, and thus a sourced biographical statement about Murray himself by Murray as well. I'm still looking for sourced statements about Murray's views on a variety of issues that are more recent in time than that. A lot has happened in the scholarly world since the publication of The Bell Curve. Thanks for your reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- A worthy goal. I haven't read Murray extensively, but from my limited sample, his later books are a better source of his post-Bell Curve opinions, including some reflection on that book. The problem with quoting a book blurb is that the format is inherently brief (whereas Murray as a writer is expansive) and the context is lacking: a reader here must know what What is Intelligence is about to understand what Murray was endorsing. Barte (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Azusa Pacific University controversy?
Charles Murray was disallowed from making a speech at Azusa Pacific University (which was "postponed") because of Charles Murray's allegedly controversial writings. He defends himself here. Is this relevant enough to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajajad (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Does any other source think that this is an important issue? Is the occurrence of the event even reported anywhere else? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Picture of him
We should find one.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Goldlocks' Effect: Sen suggest that unfreedom diminishes our overall value. Perhaps as important is how 'unfreedom' effects 'Goldlocks and the Three Bears' and the author's three key greatness attributes, 1) trial and error, 2) simplicity, and 3) innovation. Murray's Law is the perpetually declining value of 'give a man a fish' programs is correct and that the ultimate harm is done to its recipients, but the ultimate harm is the disruption of freedom that kills the desire, the passion, the component of human nature to succeed which is what Goldi teaches us. Try and try again. Make decisions simple and be willing to go to step one. And finally, when all else doesn't work, even the age-old criminal intent of breaking and entering can work, even if only temporarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlewellen12 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Murray (political scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101113633/http://www.american.com:80/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat to http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
White Nationalist label seems inappropriate to quote neutrally.
This article neutrally quotes Southern Poverty Law Center as describing Murray as a "White Nationalist". That label is probably incorrect and seems absurd on the surface. Murray co-authored The Bell Curve with Richard Hernnstein, a Jew, and works at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank with some Jewish faculty. Most White Nationalists are Anti-Jewish, so the company Murray keeps would not fit in with his being a White Nationalist, and I've also never heard Murray advocate a white ethnic state, which would be the ordinary definition of a white nationalist, he's never said anything closely resembling the political platform of Kevin MacDonald. Unless significant, mainstream reliable sources describe him as a white nationalist I don't think the SPLC quote should be presented as if correct. RandomScholar30 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist
Question: Should the SPLC's identification of Murray as a White Nationalist be included in the article?
Background: The following was removed from this article:
- The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies Murray as a White Nationalist who uses "racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor."[1][2]
References
- ^ "Charles Murray". Southern Poverty Law Center. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
- ^ Weigel, David. "Charles Murray, Public Menace". Slate.com. Slate. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- Include, subject to points raised by MShabazz below, namely that it must be present in the body. The SPLC stuff is attributed and therefore legitimate given its authority. Detail, the present heading in the article is "white supremacy", that would be better rephrased since the SPLC criticisms go far beyond WSup. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Include. I fully agree with Pincrete and Malik Shabazz. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Exclude: SPLC is primary (and non-authoritative.) The Slate piece is a blog – not RS for standard claims, definitely not RS for "white nationalist" BLP claims. An outcome of include Include would go straight to WP:BLPN. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Include
both in lede andin the body and summarize/mention in the lede (per Maunus below). Despite James' comment above, the SPLC obviously is an authority on these matters, their opinion on stuff like this is notable and regularly reported on in major news outlets, academic books and papers, etc. If it's attributed to them I see no problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC) - Include, but not in lead. The SPLC is notable, whether or not it is universally viewed as authoritative, so should be in the article. However, with only secondary reference a blog hosted by a POV publication (Slate), it shouldn't be in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Include -- in lead and body. This is normal stuff, appropriate for inclusion with attribution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Include mention of the SPLC in the body (and probably other similar critiques since these are abundant) and include some mention of the prominent view that he supports some kind of racialist worldview in the lead - probably summarizing not only SPLC but also the other relevant critical views.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Include per Maunus's comments. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Include. (Copied from BLPN) SPLC is a primary source for its own opinion, but it is a recognised *notable* opinion on stuff like this. If it was the *only* organisation/person who thought this way about them, there would be an argument for exclusion. As it stands even a brief search shows a lot of sources that have the same opinion/view of the subject, published in otherwise reliable publications, so it is useable in the body of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't find any "lots of sources", could you give us a couple? (Not interested in cites to The Nation or whatever). Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would also like to see them listed. The only arguably legitimate source I see is the NY Times editorial. James J. Lambden (talk)
- I didn't find any "lots of sources", could you give us a couple? (Not interested in cites to The Nation or whatever). Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exclude. The SPLC is a good organization but it's not an ideologically unbiased organization and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic and cast too wide a net. The Slate piece is just a blog. Here you have "Charles Murray, a white nationalist..." but that is Media Matters, also smart people but also ideologically biased. What we want is Time or CBS denoting him as a white nationalist. I can't find an instance of that. Also, Murray denies being a white nationalist; he's not out-and-proud like Richard B. Spencer or whatever. That matters some, in a BLP. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exclude from lede (From BLP/N) If it is only the SPLC making this claim, and its claim parroted by others like Salon, then it is a small viewpoint that should not be presented in the lede. It can be included in the body obviously along with his counter-claim. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Include - as per Maunus' comments, this is a pretty key feature of his public image and notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- I don't know whether it's an appropriate description of Murray, but I agree with part of the edit summary of the editor who removed it that it doesn't belong at the end of the lead unless there's a discussion of his views and why the SPLC considers him a white nationalist elsewhere in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try moving it to the "Research and views" section, and I'll remove it completely if the RfC results indicates it should be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the text was present in the article when I commented. I've submitted a request to the BLP Noticeboard. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)